 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Palin v. Gore...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Dec 09 - 06:49 AM "Rig, it must be me but sometimes I just don't follow you. :)" Still, it's nice that you keep trying. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Dec 09 - 08:29 PM They may have been coming from the APP. A lot of chimps are ticked off because she turned down Chongo's offer to run as his VP or future Secretary of State in 2012. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 20 Dec 09 - 08:08 PM I know, Bobertz, it does sound unbelievable. :) Rig, it must be me but sometimes I just don't follow you. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Dec 09 - 07:56 PM Still it bears looking into. The threats might have been coming from Al Gore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 09 - 07:55 PM Palin makin' stuff up, Eb??? Horrors!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 20 Dec 09 - 07:43 PM Evidently Palin claims in her book that her daughters got threats of violence when they were in Juneau schools. We don't tend to believe it- neither the school administration nor the police department have any record of any such charge. And I happen to know that both of the girls were popular in their classes. I suspect Palin is so down on Juneau that she made it up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Dec 09 - 07:19 PM Well, colonies aren't official anymore. They're done unofficially now, and the surest sign that a place is a colony is when it is very obviously occupied by a foreign military force of a greater power which is in position to enforce the wishes of the colonizer...or else! Russia used to do that too in places like Aghanistan. Such places aren't called "colonies" anymore because the politically correct rules have changed. They're called "allies" now, generally speaking, but they are in fact colonies. Iraq is a tripartite colony (Shia section, Sunni section, Kurdish section) under the thumb of Anglo-America. They have a superficial measure of political sovereignty...just like Najibullah did in Afghanistan when the Russians were there, but they are still a tripartite colony under foreign guns. If all Anglo-American forces were withdrawn, you'd see that situation change quite rapidly as war broke out again between the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. Whoever eventually won would establish a new and independent Iraq, and I doubt it would be a dear friend of Anglo-America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 09 - 05:10 PM Maybe Cheney will come in person, Q... I'd like that very much... Yes, very much... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 20 Dec 09 - 02:13 PM Careful, Bobert, if Cheney runs in 2012, his co-conspirators will be looking for you. Maybe a couple of them are here at mudcat. 'One never knows, does one?' I will agree that the war in Iraq was a terrible waste, just as the war in Vietnam was. Not only that, but it stirred up and consolidated enemies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 20 Dec 09 - 01:59 PM My exact point, Q... Total wastage everywhere you look... A waste of oil... A waste ot lives... A waste of treasury... A waste of demoestic policies that could have helped the working class... Etc... Now wonder Cheney doesn't want folks to know *exactly* who his co-conspirators were... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Dec 09 - 12:45 PM If you look back to administration statements before the invasion. There is a good case to be made that they expected to be a colony, and a self-financing one at that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 20 Dec 09 - 12:40 PM If Chinese, Malaysian, British, Russian, Norwegian as well as U. S. companies getting to develop their oil is any sign, they are not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Dec 09 - 11:40 AM You're under the impression that it's not a US colony? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 19 Dec 09 - 05:12 PM Tye Bush/Cheney plan was wastage of soldiers and civilians and taxpayers money in a far off place. Energy, if you are referring to petroleum, had nothing to do with it, or if they were thinking of that, that was piling stupidity on stupidity. Unless the U. S. took Iraq over as a colony, there would be no way to exercise control over their petroleum reserves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 09 - 04:52 PM Q, I thought that the Bush/Cheney energy plan was "wastage"... No??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 19 Dec 09 - 03:33 PM "The Copenhagen climate change summit will go down in history, but for reasons very different from what the thousands of people who fight the blistering cold every day, were hoping for." ~ Mohammed Yahia (19 DEC 2009) {from the site linked to by Ake} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Date: 19 Dec 09 - 02:53 PM The green view of Copenhagen. here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 19 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM Only someone from cloud nine (Ban Ki-Moon of the UN and the Swedish PM) could expect nations with very different aims and problems to agree on a definite program, let alone arrive at a "legally binding" treaty. The EU may act as a unit, but all others will contribute as they see fit and as they become affected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Date: 19 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM The shafting of the poorer countries by the "filthy five" is the shape of things to come, when the powerful will unite to crush the weak. Soon all pretense of democracy and the rule of international law will be abandoned.....the rich and powerful countries will simply move in and take what they need in the way of energy, water,minerals Then all talk of global warming and climate change will be ignored, political ideology will become even more "short term". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 19 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM Bush threw out Kyoto and allowed Cheney to run energy policy. Are you saying that Obama is a continuation of that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Date: 19 Dec 09 - 02:25 PM You must be jokin'.....it was a sell out. So much for Obama as aleader of global change. As I said months ago he will change only what he is allowed to change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 19 Dec 09 - 02:20 PM No mention of "filthy five" in that news coverage of NZ delegate Macey's comments. He also said Obama's brokered deal was a step in the right direction but "modest." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:55 PM Leaders of the "filthy five" flee Copenhagen crime scene! here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:37 PM TIA and KP- Point 10 is certainly valid. Just one aspect- electrical power wastage- In our downtown core, lights in the business towers are on all night, as well as in businesses along major streets (although most stores are closed), and light pollution is such that one must be well outside the city and suburbs to see anything more than just the moon and a couple of the brightest stars or planets. Conditions are as bad in all population centers, as shown by the pictures taken from space. These lights (and failure to reduce heat in these buildings at night) eat a lot of energy. Occasionally complaints are raised locally, but the arguments are that building lighting and heating are controlled by automatic switches and it would be expensive to revise, there is danger from thieves in darkened businesses, and light equals public safety. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM Listened to a debate on the BBC this morning. Copenhagen delegates from Sweden, Maldives, Australia, South Africa, China and elsewhere were there. The comments from the Chinese delegate , in essence, were that China would make changes in its own way and in its own time. The Swedish delegate talked about binding legislation, as did a Greenpeace observer from the audience- which to me seem a cloud nine hope. The Australian prime minister seemed resistant to change, I think sensitive to accusations that it is a big polluter because of its massive coal exports. Tuvalu (delegate in the audience) and Maldives asked for action before they lost the land they stand on. China has placed itself among the developing nations- in one sense it is, but on the other hand it is a financial and industrial giant- and its more rural areas do not lack food or other necessities, but continue in an old village way of life. These are my own interpretations; others may have read the comments differently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 19 Dec 09 - 10:02 AM Yes, the real battle is the oone of hearts and minds and once we can get folks really on board toward pro-human/pro-earth thinking then it will be conservation is in and consumption is out... Kinda hard to get there with the Cheney Energy Policy still in force but we will overcome... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: TIA Date: 19 Dec 09 - 08:09 AM KP- Will make a longish post, but here are my comments on your list: 1. Thoroughly agree 2. Indisputable 3. Of course 4. Yes, there will be effects of some kind from the heat. Not sure if more severe weather is the most important effect though. Loss of Arctic ice and consequent potential shut-down of the global conveyor currents is the one that may have the biggest effect. 5. It is hard to identify a single phenomenon as "driving" global climate change since there are feedbacks pushing everywhichway in complicated fashion. However, CO2 is the one we have complete control over and could use it for leverage on methane, water vapor and other things. 6. Agreed. Weather does not equal climate. For every argument that goes "there is no global warming because it snowed in Houston last week", one could counter "there has to be global warming because it was hot in Chicago las week". It's just a silly argument. 7. Changes in average temperature can in fact kill you! If your ecological niche shifts northward or upslope, and barriers prevent your migration with it - you will die. 8. Agree 9. Agree. Furthermore, the non-renewables will by definition run-out. And, it will require energy to build the infrastructure required for a new type of energy. We can provide an orderly (albeit expensive) transition now using the remains of non-renewable energy, or stick our heads in the sand until they run out, and then we will have to build the new infrastructure with our bare hands and sticks. 10. Conservation is a win in three ways: 1st, you save right away. 2nd, things last longer, thus using less resources to build new ones and dispose of the old. 3rd less use also means less maintenance - which also saves energy and resources. Cheers and Happy Holidays! TIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:22 PM Looks like Obama has brokered some sort of deal in Copenhagen. Not enforceable, however, since each country must legislate its own actions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:21 PM GUEST,KP Perhaps you could re-post that on the GW thread. This one is more about personalities and ain't goin' no where. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:19 PM Good post... Just to add one thing is that, yeah, it may cost a trillion dollars a year for the next 30 years to convert the planet to planet freindly energy but that money would have been spent somewhere else and creating jobs... Why not let the expenditure create jobs *and* be pro-Earth... Seems like win' win... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,KP Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:11 PM I posted this on the 'Where's the Global Warming thread' which seems to have been superseded by this Palin vs Gore thread (and perhaps that personalization is a metaphor for the problem of gaining a consensus on this debate). It was my attempt to summarise 10 points that most people might agree with. It prompted a good discussion with PDQ about the carbon cycle, but I would still find it interesting to hear which of the points below people do and don't agree with: '1. Carbon Dioxide absorbs heat from solar radiation. The physics of that has been pretty clear for about 100 years, thanks to Arrhenius and others. 2. Humans are burning a lot of hydrocarbon fuels that have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 3. You would expect the heat absorbed by the extra carbon dioxide has to go somewhere. 4. Our global climate should be affected by the extra heat - there is more energy driving the fronts and cyclones around 5. Carbon dioxide is clearly not the only thing driving changes in global climate - there are solar variations, Milankovitch cycles etc. In particular we don't know nearly enough about the role of methane as a greenhouse gas, and the impact of aerosols in mitigating the greenhouse effect. 6. You can't make any useful conclusions about the changes in global climate from individual episodes of good/bad weather - weather is a chaotic system (especially here in the northern UK), which means tiny changes in the starting conditions have huge changes in the final weather outcome. Indeed chaos maths was first discovered by a meteorologist. 7. Changes in average temperature don't kill you - its the possible increase of extreme events that's damaging. Its a problem if a 1 in 300 year flood actually happens every 25 years. 8. At some point we will have to move to a renewable non-fossil fuel economy so it makes sense to invest in these technologies. Given the sources of much of the world's oil and gas there are probably good political reasons for doing so. 9. The cost of converting large quantities of the world's power supply to renewables/nuclear could be huge (the International Energy Authority are talking about a trillion dollars a year for the next thirty years!), but its not dissimilar to the amounts Governments are spending/talking about spending to reflate the world economy out of the current recession/depression. 10. Although a lot of attention is focused on the impact of transport (from SUV's to air travel), actually the biggest source of greenhouse gases is the heating lighting and air-conditioning of buildings (about 40% in the UK). Reducing the carbon footprint of buildings can usually be achieved by decreasing their energy consumption - in other words it can save you money to reduce your emissions. There are lots of easy gains here - there is typically a 500% difference in energy consumption between the best and worst office buildings for example. So it makes sense to 'turn the lights off when you go home'. I don't know about every point but I would hope that many of the contributors to this debate would actually agree with much of the above. As a personal note I have sufficient technical background to understand some of the climate science but am not a practicing researcher in the area. I used to work for an oil company, and indeed still own shares in it. I do produce a number of studies into the economic impact of global warming and some of the amelioration strategies. Looking forward to hear your comments.' KP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:03 PM "Spoken like a good Christian, Rig!" My god, do I sound that bad? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:54 PM A parable: A certain smoker has noticed that s/he has been coughing a bit lately and rationalizes that it's the weather- hey, everybody's been coughing. It's the season, for pete's sake. S/he also has noticed that s/he gets winded a bit more and sooner than usual. But hey, s/he's getting older - no one expects to be able to run the distance they could when they were 20. Besides, if s/he were to quit smoking, who says it would help anything? If there are creepy crawlies in her/his lungs already, in all likelihood it would be too late to make a difference That would mean that s/he had denied her or himself a pleasure s/he thoroughly enjoys, for no good reason. And besides, most people who quit smoking gain weight. And if there is one thing s/he has never wanted, it is to be fat Who wants a world of fat people? Not her/him. And besides, s/he knows people who quit smoking and instead of saving money from not buying the ciggies they buy a whole lot more food, and junk food at that. And besides, etc, etc... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:32 PM Ditto... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:31 PM BB (and the rest of the world)- I suspect that you (BB) would group me with the HotHeads, so let me attempt to speak for them (or at least one of them). A static environment is not the goal. We realize that this is impossible. Earth processes will never allow this. Climate has changed in the past, and uniformitarianism assures that it will change in the future. The issue is not "change" versus "no change". It is "change on a geologic timescale" versus "change on a human time scale". "Natural" climate change is typically slow, proceeding at a pace that allows flora and fauna to adapt or migrate. Yes, there have been sudden global climate changes in the past. And, every one that we know of is associated with a mass extinction event in which the contemporary dominant genera disappear (and Homo is certainly among the modern dominants). Today, climate is changing, and at a pace never before seen in the geologic record. There is good evidence that human activities contribute to this pace. How shall the world's flora and fauna react? It is proceeding too fast for evolution to help us adapt. The world is too full of anthropogenic barriers to allow sudden mass migrations. So, the response of Earth's biota cannot be uniformitarian. Shall we throw up our hands and admit that we are quite possibly fuct? Or, shall we acknowledge the possibility that we are contributing to the pace of climate change, and try to slow it? Or, you may suggest something else. A lot of people are simply in denial because trying to slow the pace will certainly have a dramatic effect on their lifestyle. They rationalize this by saying that the science is uncertain or even flawed. But they are not exercising the Precautionary Principle that they use in all other aspects of their lives: If there is baby formula with a 1% chance of causing adverse effects, we would all stop using it immediately. So why, in this instance, are we insisting on 100% certainty that we are harming our babies before we stop? ** Thus endeth the speech of the HotHead. Thanks for listening. ** The answer of course is $$$$$$$$$$. What does that say about our priorities? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:20 PM The problem, JOhn, is that wasn't exactly Al Gore's house, was it??? Butg nevermind technicalities... No, Gore isn't exactly winning becuase most of the folks who are listening (not paying attention, mind you) aren't folks with a high degree of education or vision... You know, the general population of the US in these dumbed down days of Tom Jefferson's little experiement... As for global warming being a false alarm??? So what??? I really don't care one way or another if it is or isn't... Air, water and soil pollution aren't a false alarm and alot of the things that are are being talked about in terms of global warming are the same things that produce that pollution... But it gets better here... Cleaning up our planet and investing in smart ways for future populations to live with much smaller carbon footprints is a very exciting field... It is going to produce lots of jobs... I mean lots, as mankind retools for the future... Are we there yet??? Nah... But close... Pollution??? Global warming??? Mox Nix... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:09 PM Spoken like a good Christian, Rig! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:07 PM Bobert, I was interested in your "25 bedroom" comment because my recollection was that actually Al Gore's house was a little bit smaller than that. It only has 20 rooms and 8 bathrooms, a pool, a pool house and a guest house and a $2500/month electric bill. I know we tend not to be Palin fans on this thread, but is Gore really winning this debate? Late breaking news: His website says he is retracting his "ice-free in 5 years" comments about the North Pole. I'm pretty sure he doesn't get any debate points here either. Somebody better get their act together or the environmental message is going to take a beating. We are convinced already, but I've got to tell you, I think the global warming consensus is turning into a serious scientific debate with a serious chance that the evidence may not support Gore. If that is the way things go, I sure don't want our efforts to preserve our planet to sink along with one particular scientific claim. About a million posts ago, you said that your environmentalism was a lot deeper than global warming alone. I am with you there. I don't want to hitch my hopes for a cleaner, more sustainable home for humans and other life to a failing hypothesis, if science shows "global warming" to be a false alarm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Dec 09 - 04:37 PM Well, if that's the way they want to live, it's up to them. As long as they stay where they are they won't upset the rest of the world. It's when they start migrating that causes all the problems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 18 Dec 09 - 03:08 PM Adding to Little Hawks comments, countries like D. R. Congo comprise many different groups, thrown together under a government that is weak and unresponsive to needs. Boundaries are artificial, throwing diverse groups together, determined by the colonial powers that have gone home. Competition and war between groups seeking power (or just to have self-rule in their own corner of the 'country') becomes inevitable. Inevitably, the 'more children the better' rule prevails- more hands to help feed the family, more children to sell, and more bodies to replace those that die young. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 09 - 02:54 PM Jack the S. BB - "IF the goal is a static environment ( which is NOT natural) than we need to get rid of at least 99 out of every 100 people." JtS- "Otherwise in talking about exterminating 6 billion people you look like a fascist fool. " YOU are being an idiot, who does not understand simple sentences. DID I EVER state that MY goal was a static environment? NO!!!!!! The GW "hotheads are the ones pushing that point, and THEY are both Fools and Fascist- Look at what they do to all who question anything they say. So, you are WHAT, besides a foolish fascist idiot? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 18 Dec 09 - 02:15 PM Bruce you are the only hothead on this thread. You should go and find those of which you write. You need to find the folks sayin this and talk to them. >>if it is worth stopping GW AT ANY COST<< Otherwise in talking about exterminating 6 billion people you look like a fascist fool. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM Bobert, "As for bb's idea that 99% of the people should go??? Well, the percentage wasn't the same with Hitler but he had similar ideas " I was merely extending the GW "Hothead" logic to it's extreme- if it is worth stopping GW AT ANY COST ( as is claimed by those demanding action) then THEY are the ones like Hitler, not me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Dec 09 - 11:54 AM Well, Rig, I think you need to look at how indigenous populations lived before the white colonizers arrived and before the traditional cultures of those indigenous populations were taken over and mostly destroyed by the industrially-based and consumer-driven philosophies that our civilization is built upon. Traditional cultures gave those people a good education (in their own cultural terms....that is, they knew exactly what they needed to know to function consistently and effectively as what and who they were)......a stable set of social rules that everyone understood.....a society of people who had a strong sense of pride and identity. That was all destroyed when the White colonizers came in and took over the indigenous areas by military force. The old ways fell by the wayside and the population was basically conscripted (or enslaved) as workers for European and North American industry and agriculture. Areas of natural land that were once lived upon in a natural way by hunter-gatherers were devastated. The first thing that generally happened was that most of the trees got cut down. Then most of the animals got wiped out or severely reduced. The natural land got divided up into farming blocks that drove out all indigenous species from an area so that ONE crop could be grown there. The indigenous people who used to work with the powers of Nature to survive were now regimented to work against the powers of Nature by slaving away on farms or in industry. The industries and farms polluted the waterways. The industrial cities that were built polluted everything around them. Is it surprising that poverty-stricken people shorn of their traditional cultures and traditional way of life, robbed of their identity and pride, and packed into ugly, overcrowed slums and many facing "unemployment" (something they had never faced in traditional life)...is it surprising that those people would lose their social cohesion and fall into alcoholism, drug abuse, breakdown of family life, and an irresponsibly high birth rate? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Dec 09 - 07:04 AM They had all of those things before western medicine was introduced into their countries, and they didn't have the population problems. One more element of western medicine needs to go there; we call it "the pill." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 09 - 10:11 PM They are also countries that are desperately poor and desperately lacking in security for the average citizen. That's not a result of having a high birth rate...the high birth rate itself is a result of the poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, and insecurity of the general population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Dec 09 - 09:52 PM And these are the countries that pose the greatest threat to human survival. Rank Country Birth rate (births per 1000 persons) 1 Democratic Republic of the Congo 49.6 2 Guinea-Bissau 49.6 3 Liberia 49.6 4 Niger 49.0 5 Afghanistan 48.2 6 Mali 48.1 7 Angola 47.3 8 Burundi 47.1 9 Uganda 46.6 10 Sierra Leone 46.2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Dec 09 - 08:06 PM Alternatives must be attractive or they are dead. " Perhaps. But attractive is as attractive does. Suppose that it comes to the obvious point where certain actions or inactions are the difference between survival or being deucedly uncomfortable? Which would we choose? 'Uncomfortable' might include expensive, inconvenient, chilly or non permanent. But at its worst it would buy us time. Survival- well, if you can survive until the next crisis whether that is tomorrow or next year that is what you will probably opt for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:59 PM It's going to be real interesting to see how the planet gets to a point where it's inhabitants come to a mutual agreement that unless we make serious and major changes then we are all screwed... Seems the will is not there yet... But we are getting there... Look at what happened to human behavior when gas was at $4.00 a gallon and climbing... Lots... That is a good thing... It's going to take these kinds of things ahppening to wake folks up to the fact that things cannot get better if we have this idea that the "good old day" can be returned to like flicking a switch... The good old days are over and the future is going to be a real challenge for Earthlings on a magnitude that we cannot begin to appreciate or fathom... Yes, population control is part of the equation but only one part... Eating animals is a biggie... Water is a biggie... Personally, I'd love to be a little younger so I could see just how mankind will come to grips but I think it will put off the hard choices as long as it possibly can... Meanwhile, we'll get a few carbon deals and promises but we really won't see the hard choices in any of our life times... But no matter... They will come... There is no alternative... Just not soon... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:41 PM "What we want" determines what we will vote for. Alternatives must be attractive or they are dead. |
